The Background of Terry v. Ohio (1968)

Martin McFadden, who was a police officer in the State of Ohio’s Cleveland Division, had noticed that two individuals appeared to be acting in a nature perceived as suspicious by McFadden. Upon observing the two individuals from his patrol car, McFadden had noticed that the two men appeared to be planning some nature of criminal activity; the two men were reported to be pacing and periodically peering into the window of a storefront – in the interim, the two would return to each other and engage in a discussion. McFadden approached the two men and identified himself as a police officer, ushering them into a nearby store; subsequent to this, he undertook a ‘frisk’ of the two men; a frisk is defined as the patting or feeling of the garments donned by an individual under the suspicion of the concealment of contraband on that individual’s person. McFadden’s frisk rendered the discovery of a handgun, and the individuals were apprehended on charges of carrying concealed firearms:

The defense of the arrestee – John W. Terry – claimed that Officer McFadden lack sufficient probable cause, which is the legal instrument in which a law enforcement agent retains the right to search personal, private property belonging to an individual

Due process is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizen in the event of an arrest; government officials must retain an individual’s human rights and liberties – this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue damage or harm

The Case Profile of Terry v. Ohio

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Terry v. Ohio’:

Date of the Trial: December 12th, 1967

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field regulates ‘due process’, which is defined as the government’s obligation to respect, maintain, and uphold the legal rights of its citizens in the event of an arrest. Both the Federal and State government must preserve and protect an individual’s human rights and liberties; this includes fair, respectful, and ethical treatment devoid of undue violence and harm

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by John W. Terry against the State of Ohio within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

John Terry claimed that his arrest was the result of an invasion of privacy implemented through the violation of his 4th Amendment rights protecting him – as well as every citizen of the United States – from unlawful searches and seizures conducted by law enforcement agents

United States Reports Case Number: 392 U.S. 1

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 10th, 1968

Legal Venue of Terry v. Ohio: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice Earl Warren

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Terry v. Ohio case:

John W. Terry; Plaintiff – Terry v. Ohio

The State of Ohio; Defendant – Terry v. Ohio

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the State of Ohio, mandating that McFadden’s search was prompted by reasonable and verifiable suspicion, defined as a probable cause rooted in suspicion and concern for the public well-being, as well as the protection and preservation of public safety from potential criminal activity

Associated Legislation with regard to Terry v. Ohio: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Terry v. Ohio trial:

The 4th Amendment prohibits the unlawful search and seizure of resident belonging to citizens of the United States of America; this amendment also defines the rights of privacy awarded to citizens of the United States

The Background of Texas v. Johnson (1989)

During the Republican National Convention of 1984 taking place in Dallas, Texas, Gregory Lee Johnson undertook an expression of protest in the form of setting fire to the American Flag. Johnson was an admitted member of a private institution that was comprised of individuals promoting the Communist movement; he enacted his nature of protest in order to presumably express his dissatisfaction with the Republican National Convention and Ronald Reagan. Upon incinerating the American Flag, he was subsequently arrested by the Dallas Police Department on the grounds that he had violated as statewide statute mandating the illegality with regard to the destruction of items and objects considered to be both ‘respected and venerated’; he was fined $2,000:

Although Johnson’s Appeal case took upwards of 4 years to be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States, it was eventually granted a hearing in 1989

The Case Profile of Texas v. Johnson

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Texas v. Johnson’:

Date of the Trial: March 21st, 1989

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the State of Texas against Gregory Lee Johnson within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Johnson stated that his arrest resulting from his setting fire to the American Flag, which he had claim was a sign of protest in lieu of a sign of violence, was a direct violation of his 1st Amendment Rights; as an American citizen, the 1st Amendment both preserved and protected his right of free speech and expression

Johnson also disputed the nature of classification employed with regard to the determination of ‘venerated’ and ‘respected’, claiming that they were rooted in subjectivity in lieu of the public sector

United States Reports Case Number: 491 U.S. 397

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: June 21st, 1989

Legal Venue of Texas v. Johnson: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Texas v. Johnson case:

Gregory Lee Johnson; Plaintiff – Texas v. Johnson

The State of Texas; Defendant – Texas v. Johnson

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled that Johnson’s constitutional rights and civil liberties had been violated as a result of his arrest; the Supreme Court claimed that expression without illegality – or the intent to incite illegal recourse – is both protected and lawful under the Constitution

Associated Legislation with regard to Texas v. Johnson: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Texas v. Johnson trial:

The provisions set forth within the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution mandate the freedom of speech expression, which prohibits the unlawful banning, prohibition, and ceasing of unlawful censorship.; freedom of expression is an unalienable right afforded to every citizen of the United States of America – however, the stipulations within the 1st Amendment require that the nature of the expression in question exist in accordance with applicable legislature

The Background of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988)

Catherine Kuhlmeier was a student at the East High School who undertook a position on the schools news publication, which was titled ‘The Spectrum’. The review process with regard to the content of The Spectrum typically involved the Principal of the School undertaking the review of the content and subject matter expressed in the publication. After discovering news stories reflecting teen pregnancy and divorce – albeit attributed with pseudonyms in order to allow the subject of the piece to retain anonymity – the Principal mandated that those specific news stories were a violation of the privacy of the student about whom the story was written; he continued, by stating that the story neither sufficiently protected the identity of the student nor allowed for dissenting opinion due to the presumed anonymity within the news story – the editors of the paper cited that the Principal had violated their respective 1st Amendment rights.

The Case Profile of Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier

The following is a case profile of the legal trial eponymously titled ‘Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier’:

Date of the Trial: October 13th, 1987

Legal Classification: Administrative Law; this legal field associated with events and circumstances in which the Federal Government of the United States engages its citizens, including the administration of government programs, the creation of agencies, and the establishment of a legal, regulatory federal standard

Accused Criminal Activity: The following criminal activity and charges were cited by the Hazelwood School District against student Catherine Kuhlmeier within the appeal brought forth subsequent to the initial ruling:

Kuhlmeier argued that the news printed was in accordance to legality with regard to the public sector, which is defined as any setting in which individuals of all ages inhabit that comply with legal statutes of accepted morality and proper behavior; as a result, the denial of the news story was a form of unconstitutional censorship

United States Reports Case Number: 484 U.S. 260

Date of the Delivery of the Verdict: January 13th, 1988

Legal Venue of Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier: The Supreme Court of the United States

Judicial Officer Responsible for Ruling: Chief Justice William Rehnquist

Involved Parties: The following are the parties named with regard to their involvement in the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier case:

Hazelwood School District; Plaintiff – Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Catherine Kuhlmeier; Defendant – Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier

Verdict Delivered: The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Hazelwood School District, stating that public settings may differ by locale. With regard to a school, the nature of the public sector within publically-funded institutions – such as public schools – is defined with regard to the nature of the respective form of media, its adherence to legislation, and the discretion of school administration. As a result, schools are not entitled to the breadth of the 1st Amendment as is entitled to jurisdictions existing outside of publically-funded educational facilities.

Associated Legislation with regard to Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier: The following statutory regulations were employed with regard to the Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier trial:

The 1st Amendment of the Constitution of the United States ensures that every American citizen be granted the freedom to express themselves in accordance with applicable legislature enacted in order to preserve the safety and wellbeing of the general public; however, the right to free speech prohibits ideas, ideology, or creeds to be imposed on any individual without their respective and expressed consent

What were the Palmer Raids?

The Palmer Raids were the attempts instituted by the United States Department of Justice to arrest and subsequently deport radical leftists, primarily those who believed and spread anarchy towards the United States government. The Palmer Raids and subsequent arrests took place in November of 1919 and January of 1920 under the leadership of Mitchell Palmer, the acting Attorney General of the United States government.

Although more than 500 foreign-born citizens were eventually deported (including a number of prominent leftist leaders) as a result of the Palmer Raids, the overall efforts of the program were largely impeded by officials at the United States Department of Labor—the formal agency who maintained authority to exercise and initiate deportations. The agents aligned with United States Department of Labor, in response to the Palmer Raids, widely objected Palmer’s methods and blatant disregard for the legal process.

The Palmer Raids took place in response to the Red Scare—the domestic term, which referred to the fear and general reaction against political radicals in the United States of America during the years that followed World War I.

What Lead to the Palmer Raids?

During the First World War, the United States witnessed a widespread campaign against divided loyalties on part of immigrants and various ethnic groups within the United States. The threat of this ideology became tangible when anarchist bombings took place in April and June of 191. At the end of April, nearly 30 terrorist letter bombs were mailed to various government officials and businessmen throughout the United States.  Furthermore, on June 2, 1919, a number of bombs were detonated by anarchists in eight American cities; the bombs had little effect, but one detonation damaged the home of Attorney General Mitchell Palmer.

 Although only a few reached their targets and only a few government officials suffered injuries, the underlying motivation of the violent actions proved to be a severe threat towards the sanctity and general function of the United States’ Federal government.

Raids and Arrests:

Palmer eventually established relationships with numerous officials aligned with the labor Department. Through his efforts, Palmer’s budget was increased and the ability to raid private homes was strengthened—the officials of the Labor Department previously required probable cause to receive a warrant and then subsequent proof to initiate a deportation order.

While working with the Department of Labor, Palmer organized coordinated raids against the Union of Russian Workers and received an injunction to prevent a strike against the coal industry, which was instituted by the United Mine Workers. Along with the local police, the Palmer Raids were first enacted on November 7th, 1919 and initiated against various Russian workers in 12 American cities. Newspaper accounts reported that some of these targeted individuals were badly beaten during the arrests. The Palmer Raids were poorly administered for a wide net was cast on the general population—numerous American citizens, teachers and passers-by were deemed to be radicals. In total, the arrests far exceeded the number of warrants.

On December 21, the Buford left New York Harbor with a total of 249 deportees. The Palmer Raids continued into the New Year in a more systemized approach—mini-raids took place throughout the nation, which eventually precipitated an ideological battle between palmer and various members of the Federal government and Congress.

Who is Thomas Hewitt?

Thomas Hewitt is a fictional character who is widely known for his nickname ‘Leatherface’, which is an alias given to Thomas Hewitt as a result of the mask with which he adorns himself. Thomas Hewitt – or Leatherface – is perhaps most noteworthy for his character portrayal in both the comic book and full length cinema feature The Texas Chainsaw Massacre. However, despite the fictitious portrayal – in addition to the fictitious crimes undertaken by Thomas Hewitt – the character known as Leatherface was considered to be directly influenced by Ed Gein. Ed Gein, whose crimes do mirror that of Thomas Hewitt, was charged with murder, illegally-exhuming corpses from local graveyards, necrophilia, and the mutilation of corpses.

Ed Gein vs. Thomas Hewitt

Although Thomas Hewitt is portrayed a raving and murderous individual who resides alongside his family – also described to be murderers, Ed Gein was reported as a silent and solitary man who lived in his family’s barn with his mother until her death in 1945; subsequent to her death, Ed Gein began illegally exhuming corpses and fashioning furniture and other household appliances out of them – in addition, Ed Gein also fashion clothing out of human skin in a similar fashion as Thomas Hewitt. However, upon his arrest and conviction, Ed Gein was determined to be criminally insane and sentenced to remain in the custody of a mental institution for the criminally insane in Mendota, Wisconsin; Gein died in 1984 from pulmonary failure.

Who is Joel Rifkin?

Joel Rifkin is a convicted serial killer to whom 9 murders were attributed over the course of his murderous spree, which lasted for approximately 4 years; due to the nature of his crimes – in addition to the number of his victims – many consider Joel Rifkin to be amongst the most prolific and dangerous serial killers to exist within the State of New York.

Joel Rifkin Profile

The following outlines the crimes of Joel Rifkin

Date of Birth: Joel Rifkin was born on January 20th, 1959

Residence: East Meadow, New York

Year of First Killing: 1989; Joel Rifkin was convicted of murder a prostitute and disposing of her remains in the East River in Manhattan, New York

Year of Apprehension: 1993; Joel Rifkin was apprehended on the Southern State Parkway, which is a highway on Long Island, New York – upon investigation, the apprehending officers discovered the remains of a prostitute that he had murdered in the trunk of his car

Notable Details and Personal Information: The following personal details have been considered to be contributory to the behavior and criminal actions undertaken by Joel Rifkin; in addition, these case details were made mention within Joel Rifkin’s criminal trial:

Joel Rifkin was adopted by 2 parents; in 1987, Joel Rifkin’s father took his own life – in his trial, this fact was considered to be a catalyst for Joel Rifkin’s violent tendencies and emotional disorder

Joel Rifkin was reported to suffer from dyslexia, resulting in his possession of a 128 IQ score; these factors were considered to contribute to his difficulty in school as a child

Locations of the Murders: Joel Rifkin’s murders took place within the State of New York; oftentimes, Joel Rifkin would solicit prostitutes in Manhattan, New York and dispose of their bodies in the surrounding areas of New York and Connecticut

Victims:  Joel Rifkin was charged for the murder of 9 victims; however, he has been linked to as many as 17 victims

Status as a Serial Killer: Joel Rifkin is classified as a serial killer due to the fact that Joel Rifkin was convicted of the murder of 3 or more individuals within the duration of a single month

Nature of Victims: Joel Rifkin’s victims were classified as female prostitutes; many of whom were reported to be suffering from substance abuse and poverty – many of his victims ranged between the ages of 20 and 30

Punishment and Conviction: In 1994, Joel Rifkin – who was represented by John Lawrence – was convicted of murdering 9 individuals and sentenced to life incarceration within the Attica Correctional Facility in the State of New York; although he is eligible for parole in the year 2197, his sentence is considered to be a ‘natural life’ sentence in prison.